Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
K. Surendra Mohan, President, T.S.P. Moosath, Judicial Member, Ranjit R., Member, Beenakumari A., Member and Radhakrishnan K.R., Member
Adv. P.E. Abraham – Appellant
versus
Thankamma Mathew – Respondent
First Appeal No.A/175 of 2020
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. Complaint Case No.CC/114/2017 of District Pathanamthitta)
Decided on 19.7.2021
For the Appellant:Anil Kumar A.S. and N.G. Mahesh, Advocates
For the Respondent: In person
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) An advocate should refuse a case at the first stage as refusing later causing significant issues to client including increase in cost and the stress of hiring a new advocate.
(2) Handing over documents and refusing to fight a case midway comprises deficiency in service.
Headnote:
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) [Sec. 2(11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019] - Deficiency in service – Complainant alleged deficiency in service on part of the Opp. Party – Opp. Party advocate provided legal services to the Respondent – OP Advocate entrusted to represent respondent in Court for a complaint against her for creating new way on property by property owners – OP Advocate accepted the documents but did not file Vakalatnama – OP later asked her to hire another advocate as going to the District Forum was inconvenient for him - As a result of the delay caused by non-filing and hiring a new advocate, settlement talks failed - District Commission awarded Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs – Petitioner appealed against District Commission order to State Commission - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)(b)] – Revision Petition – Petitioner appealed to the State Commission stating that he had handed over the documents at the correct time – He also alleged that Rs. 18,000/- paid to him was not his fees but the money he was asked to give to an acquaintance – Commission ruled there was definite Deficiency of Service on his part as he should not have accepted the documents, if he did not plan on representing her – Acquaintance, who runs his own business would have his own bank account and would not need OP’s bank account – District Commission order upheld - Petitioner asked to pay costs to the respondent.
(Para 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed; District Forum decision upheld.
JUDGMENT
T.S.P. Moosath, Judicial Member.—The opposite party in C.C. No. 114/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta, in short the District Forum, has filed the appeal against the order passed by the District Forum by which he was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the complainant.
2. The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows: The complainant is residing at Mumbai along with her husband for the last several years. They used to reside at the residence of the relatives when they came to the motherland. The brothers of the complainant’s husband are settled down in Kerala and they filed a suit against the complainant, her husband and children before the Munsiff’s Court, Ranny and the said case was numbered as OS 122/2015. The said OS 122/2015 was with regard to the dispute of a way. The opposite party is an advocate and the complainant had entrusted the vakalath of the defendants in the said case to the opposite party for appearing before the Munsiff’s Court, Ranny for and on behalf of the defendants. The complaint and notices in the said case were entrusted to the opposite party and as per the demand of the opposite party on 11.06.2015 the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to ICICI Bank, Chengannur branch wherein the opposite party maintained his account. Subsequent to that as per the demand of opposite party the complainant had transferred altogether an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the opposite party’s bank account and such amounts were transferred respectively on 16.07.2015, 12.08.2015, 31.08.2015 and 14.09.2015. Even though the said payments were effected the opposite party had not appeared for the defendants in the said OS 122/2015 and because of that the defendants in the said case were set ex-parte on 15.12.2015. The opposite party has not intimated this matter to the complainant but on enquiry it revealed that they were set ex-parte in the said suit. Subsequent to that the complainant had engaged another lawyer for the conduct of said OS 122/2015. The opposite party’s inept attitude caused much mental stress and financial loss to the complainant. Even though the opposite party had received an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant for the conduct of the defence side in the suit OS 122/2015 the opposite party neither filed the vakalath nor appeared for the defendants. This is clear deficiency in service. After the said incident the complainant demanded the opposite party to return the amount of Rs. 50,000/- received from her but the opposite party was not amenable for the same. Hence the complainant prayed to realize the said amount along with compensation and costs from the opposite party.
3. The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party has the right to realize fees by providing legal opinion and also for appearing in cases and that too on the basis of the ability and knowledge of the law. The opposite party is a lawyer and his enrolment number is K574/2004 and practicing at different courts at Thiruvalla and also practicing before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The opposite party got acquaintance with the complainant through Sam @ George Ninan who is conducting a shop at Thiruvalla town and a relative of the complainant. The complainant with the help of some miscreants cut open a new way through the property of her husband’s brothers on 17.05.2015 and in the said incident the property owners had preferred a complaint against the complainant herein and in order to tackle the said complaint at Koippuram Police Station the complainant had approached the opposite party and requested to do the needful. The complainant had offered the expenditure to the opposite party for doing so. Because of the interference of the opposite party in the said matter the police had not initiat
